[CS-FSLUG] Random comment on comment

[Ed Hurst]

Don Parris wrote:
> I would say a "clean" interface is one that's uncluttered and looks
> nice.  Of course, "pretty", "nice", "handsome", "charming", and
> similar adjectives might better suit the situation.  Of course, I'm
> currently attempting a "clean" re-installation of SUSE on one box -
> that is, devoid of any traces of a previous install.  This is
> important because I believe my last re-installation was contaminated
> or tainted by the ghost of the first installation.  Are you following
> this, so far? :)

Yeah, sure.... NOT. (There's another pop phrase for you, except it 
actually has an established meaning.)

What is clutter? On the counter next to my bathroom sink, there are 
countless bottles, tubes, and various other objects. They are all neatly 
place in rows, organized by purpose (not by type), and I know exactly 
where everything is. You can hardly see any counter space open, except 
at the front edge -- don't want stuff falling off, you know.

Is that cluttered? It *is* clean because I dust and wipe often. And it 
is very usable because that's how my brain is organized. It looks pretty 
nice to me, because I never have to hunt for things. In other words, 
"clean interface" is a buzz-word which by no means equates with "more 
usable." Am I in this one-in-a-million, or just kinda oddball?

And what is "clean code"? Does less code automatically mean "cleaner"? 
What is less code means dropping out a checkpoint that just isn't likely 
to be used -- but does come up once in awhile? I've seen some "clean" 
bash scripts that will never mean a thing to me, but I know how to get 
what I need most of the time.

I maintain my church's lawnmower. It's *never* clean, because it stays 
covered with dust. Dusty roads, dusty soil under the grass, etc. 
However, it is always properly lubricated, and I sharpen the blades 
after every two acres of mowing. It always works well, but is never clean.

If you ask me, this business of talking about "clean interface" is just 
an attempt to sway people, to define for them what it means to be an 
elite user of computers. Don't tell me about "clean." Tell me about 
"adaptable to needs of a wide variety of individual users." Tell me I 
get what I want, and so does the snob next door. I like stuff organized, 
but all close to the surface. I have my favorite CLI stuff I do, with 
two or more Xterms open on my six desktops at any given moment. Each one 
is used differently, so the window size and shape are different. I don't 
care how easy it is to change the window shape, size, location, etc. 
I'll get it where and how I want it and leave it for days on end.

So my rant is a slap at the snobbishness of a certain parisan group of 
users. Too often that group is Gnome fanatics, but includes others. Nor 
do I love KDE so much (yes, there are more than two, just like political 
parties in the US). KDE is better for me because I can set it my likings 
immediately, with just a few clicks. Can't with Gnome. Too bad. Gnome 
isn't written for me. Nor is Rat Poison, E, and a hundred others. IceWM 
is written for me. In ten minutes I can create a menu from scratch that 
will match my use pattern. It requires a text editor, and is not what we 
could call "elegant" but works for me.

I am far more impressed when writers tout the newest thing as 
"configurable" and "adaptable" and to a wide array of needs and uses.

Yep, it's still about freedom.

-- 
Ed Hurst
-----------
A Bible Site -- http://webs.tconline.net/softedges/
Linux & Unix Help -- http://ed.asisaid.com/
Blog -- http://ed.asisaid.com/blog/
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]